WSP is one of the world’s leading engineering professional ... · Matthew Burns Technical Fellow...
Transcript of WSP is one of the world’s leading engineering professional ... · Matthew Burns Technical Fellow...
Matthew Burns Technical Fellow Boston, Massachusetts
Contact:• [email protected]• 617-426-7330• LinkedIn
WSP is one of the world’s leading engineering professional services consulting firms. We are dedicated to our local communities and propelled by international brainpower. Our reputation is built on helping clients worldwide mitigate risk, manage and reduce impacts, and maximize opportunities related to health and safety, sustainability, climate change, energy, water and the environment. We engineer projects that will help societies grow for lifetimes to come. Our 5,000 multidisciplinary environmental experts are part of our 36,000 talented people in more than 500 offices across 40 countries. www.wsp.com
WSP is actively recruiting for strategic positions across the U.S.
Introduction
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
Introduction
Site Background
2016 Pilot Test
PlumeStop Pilot
Conclusions
Questions
Outline
Introduction
3
Complex Sites
Introduction
4
Complex Sites
Introduction
5
Back Diffusion
Introduction
6
Back Diffusion
Advective Contaminant Transport
Introduction
7
Back Diffusion
Advective Contaminant Transport
diffu
sion
diffu
sion
diffu
sion
diffu
sion
diffu
sion
Introduction
8
Back Diffusion
Advective Groundwater Transport
dif
fusi
on
dif
fusi
on
dif
fusi
on
dif
fusi
on
dif
fusi
on
Remediate Transmissive Zones
Introduction
9
Back Diffusion
Advective Groundwater Transport
dif
fusi
on
dif
fusi
on
dif
fusi
on
dif
fusi
on
dif
fusi
on
10
Plan & Design
Monitor & ControlExecute
Initiate
Close
Managing Complex Sites
11
Plan & Design
Monitor & ControlExecute
Initiate
Close
Managing Complex Sites
Introduction
12
Actionable Data
Introduction
13
Actionable Data
Site Background
14
Site Background
2016 Pilot Test: Bioremediation + Biogeochemical Reductive Dechlorination
2017 Pilot Test: PlumeStop + Bioremediation
Site: Arkansas
Reward! for return:75 Arlington Street9th FloorBoston, MA 021161-617-426-7330
Site Background
15
Site Background
Site Background
16
Site Background
Stream
Pilot Test Area
Excavated Source Areas (red)VI Mitigation Systems
120-Foot Scale
VI Mitigation System
Site Background
17
Pre-Design Studies
Site Background
18
Pre-Design Studies─ Install more wells─ Perform a
PlumeStop Pilot Test
─ 3-monthperformance monitoring
Site Background
19
Site Layout
Site Background
20
Site Layout
2016 Pilot TestBio + Biogeochem
2017 Pilot Test PlumeStop
2016 Pilot Test
21
2016 Pilot Test Goals
• Applicable for site contaminants
• Easy to deliver through limited aperture size fractures
• Long lasting to manage back diffusion from sandstone
Site-Specific Characteristics of Ideal Amendment
2016 Pilot Test
22
2016 Pilot Test Goals
Biogeochemical Reduction
Bio + biogeochem
Amendment Assessment Matrix
y/n
ZVI plus bio
amendment note
nano- ZVI
no
PlumeStop
Agglomeration?
limited ROIclog fracturesdivert plume
no
Oxidant
Lots of buts Yes but
no limited longevity
bio
Following Technology
Yes but
Lots of buts
YesLots of beneficial synergies
2016 Pilot Test
23
Biogeochemical Reduction
2016 Pilot Test
24
Engineering Biogenic Iron Sulfide
Addition of sulfate to form FeS to treat chlorinated VOCs is a Patented Process:• Kennedy - US Patent Off. #6,884,352 B1• Contact Jim Studer of InfraSur
• [email protected] • 505-858-3136
SO42- + organic matter → S2- + H20 + CO2
Sulfate Reduction
Fe3+ + organic matter → Fe2+ + H20 + CO2
Iron Reduction
Iron Sulfide Precipitation
HS- + Fe2+ → FeS + H+
(1)
(2)
(3)
Biogeochemical Reduction
2016 Pilot Test
25
Biotic and Fe-based Abiotic ReductivePathways are Compatible & Complementary
Synergies
2016 Pilot Test
26
Biotic and Fe-based Abiotic ReductivePathways are Compatible & Complementary
Synergies
2016 Pilot Test
27
TCE Degradation Pathways
2016 Pilot Test
28
TCA Degradation Pathways
2016 Pilot Test
29
Degradation Mechanism Identification
fabiotic =SVOCt0 – SVOCt1
SVOCt0
where SVOCt = TCE + DCE + VC + Ethene + Ethane
fabiotic ≈ 1
Abiotic
fabiotic ≈ 0
Biotic
2016 Pilot Test
30
Degradation Mechanism Identification( 3.5 years of data from a Bedrock Treatment Site in Missouri)
2016 Pilot Test
31
2016 Pilot Test
2016 Pilot Test
32
2016 Pilot Test Layout
2016 Pilot Test
33
2016 Pilot Test Layout
2016 Pilot Test
34
2016 Pilot Test Amendment
Amendment Design Assumptions
Amendments (5,000 gal)– Sulfate– CRS (Fe2+, fermentable C)– HRC Primer (fermentable C)– 3DMe (fermentable C)– Sodium Bicarbonate (buffer)– Micro Nutrients (N, P)– BDI Plus
2016 Pilot Test
35
Performance Monitoring Plan(baseline plus four quarterly sampling events)
Chemical
• VOCs‒ Parents‒ Daughters
• Dissolved Gases‒ Ethene‒ Acetylene
• DOC
• Tracer dyes
Geochemical
• Field Measurements‒ ORP, DO‒ pH‒ Etc.
• Nitrate
• Ferrous Iron
• Manganese
• Sulfate & Sulfide
• Methane
• Alkalinity
MBTs
• qPCR‒ Dehalococcoides‒ tceA‒ bvcA and vcrA‒ Dehalobacter‒ Dehalogenimonas
• Compound Specific Isotope Analysis (CSIA)
2016 Pilot Test
36
Tracer Study
2016 Pilot Test
37
Geochemistry – Heat Map
Well: Gradient Orientation: up up cross cross down down
Distance: inj 20 ft 30 ft 50 ft 65 ft 80 ft 320 ftParameter
Field ParameterspH (standard units)Specific Conductance (µS/cm)DO (mg/l)ORP (mV)
Inorganics (mg/l)NitrateSulfateSulfideDivalent ManganeseFerrous Iron
Alkalinity (mg CaCO3/l)
DOC (mg/l)
MW-07-32 MW-13-28OW-2 OW-1 IW-1 OW-3 OW-4
2016 Pilot Test
38
CVOCs
Amendment Injection
2016 Pilot Test
39
CVOCs
Amendment Injection
OW-4
OW-2
OW-3
2016 Pilot Test
40
CVOCs
80 ft
320 ft
30 ft
20 ft
Distance
from OW-2
Amendment Injection
2016 Pilot Test
41
Mole Fractions
Bio
geo
chem
ical Pilo
t Test P
erform
ance M
on
itorin
g
2016 Pilot Test
42
Mole Fractions
Fabiotic:
Bio
geo
chem
ical Pilo
t Test P
erform
ance M
on
itorin
g
1.00E+00
1.00E+01
1.00E+02
1.00E+03
1.00E+04
1.00E+05
1.00E+06
1.00E+07
1.00E+08
DH
C A
bu
nd
ance
Sample Date
qPCR Dehalococcoides
MW-07-32 MW-13-28 IW-1 OW-1
2016 Pilot Test
43
qPCR
B R1 R2 R3 R4
Bio
geo
chem
ical Pilo
t Test P
erform
ance M
on
itorin
g
Fabiotic:
2016 Pilot Test
44
CSIA
δ1
3C
Bio
geo
chem
ical Pilo
t Test P
erform
ance M
on
itorin
g
2016 Pilot Test
45
2016 Pilot Test - Summary
Well: Gradient Orientation: up up down down cross/up cross/up
Distance: 20 ft 30 ft 80 ft 320 ft
DeliveryDyeGeochemistry
EfficacyCVOC TrendsCSIA
MechanismqPCR
Fabiotic abiotic biotic mix biotic
OW-1 IW-1 MW-07-32 MW-13-28
6550
OW-3 OW-4
PlumeStop Pilot
46
PlumeStop Pilot Test
The Reagent – what it is
• A highly dispersive, injectable sorbent and microbial
growth matrix
• Colloidal activated carbon (1 – 2 µm)
• Size of a bacterium – suspends as ‘liquid’
• Huge surface area – extremely fast sorption
• Proprietary anti-clumping / distribution supporting
surface treatment (patent applied for)
• Core innovation
• Enables wide-area, low-pressure distribution through the soil
matrix without clogging
Powdered Activated Carbon
(PAC)
Subsurface
Distribution
• 1” diameter glass columns
• Sandy soil with 11% silt/clay
• Gravity feed
Liquid Activated Carbon
(LAC™)
Time Lapse = 12 minutes
Powdered Activated Carbon
(PAC)Liquid Activated Carbon
(LAC™)
PlumeStop Pilot
50
PlumeStop Pilot Test Layout
PlumeStop Pilot
51
PlumeStop Pilot Layout
PlumeStop Pilot
52
PlumeStop Amendment
Amendment Design Assumptions
Amendments (5,000 gal)– PlumeStop (sorbent)– HRC Primer (fermentable C)– HRC (slow-release
fermentable C)– Sodium Bicarbonate (buffer)– Micro Nutrients (N, P)– BDI Plus– Calcium Chloride (PlumeStop
parking agent)
PlumeStop Pilot
53
Performance Monitoring Plan(baseline plus four quarterly sampling events)
Chemical
• VOCs‒ Parents‒ Daughters
• Dissolved Gases‒ Ethene‒ Ethane‒ Acetylene
• VFAs
Geochemical
• Field Measurements‒ ORP, DO‒ pH‒ Etc.
• Methane
MBTs
• qPCR‒ Dehalococcoides‒ tceA‒ bvcA and vcrA‒ Dehalobacter‒ Dehalogenimonas
• Compound Specific Isotope Analysis (CSIA)
Crushed Sandstone Core In Situ Microcosms
• VOCs• VFAs• Dissolved Gases
‒ Ethene‒ Ethane
• qPCR
• CSIA
• Field Measurements‒ ORP, DO‒ pH‒ Etc.
At a glance
54
In Situ Microcosms
PlumeStop Pilot
55
Potentiometric Surface Changes During Injection
Sample Name:
Distance:
Orientation:
Date: 4/4/17 5/17/17 4/4/17 5/16/17 4/4/17 5/16/17 4/4/17 5/17/17 4/4/17 5/17/17
Field Parameters
pH (standard units) 5.48 7.18 5.66 6.46 5.29 5.99 5.93 5.88 5.66 5.50
SC (µS/cm) 0.165 1.74 0.206 1.33 0.162 10.4 0.243 0.17 0.127 0.10
DO (mg/l) 5.10 0 4.80 0.00 5.88 0 3.40 0 5.79 1.20
ORP (mV) 192.3 -251 137.1 -157 163 -132 134 104 94.5 207
inj down down down cross
OW-7
0 30 ft 50 ft 140 ft 140 ft
IW-2 OW-5 MW-06-54 OW-6
PlumeStop Pilot
56
Geochemistry Shifts
Add increase in head data
PlumeStop Pilot
57
CVOCs
Amendment Injection
8/2/2017
PlumeStop Pilot
58
Mole Fraction
Plu
meSto
pP
ilot Test
Perfo
rman
ce Mo
nito
ring
R2
PlumeStop Pilot
59
Mole Fraction With CSIA
Plu
meSto
pP
ilot Test
Perfo
rman
ce Mo
nito
ring
R2
baseline R1 baseline R1 baseline R1 baseline R1
TCE -27.88 -24.54 -27.01 -26.21 -26.25 -24.41 -27.27 -26.03 -29.91 u
cis-DCE -26.48 -28.98 -26.63 -26.86 -26.52 -27.62 -27.04 -28.88 u
1,1-DCE -25.68 -25.30 -25.70 -24.54 -25.14 -23.72 -25.46 -25.13 -25.69 u
VCl u -26.40 u u u u u u u u
IW-2 OW-5 MW-6-54 OW-6 OW-7
PlumeStop Pilot
60
Mole FractionWith qPCR for DHC
5.37E+05 7.64E+05 2.00E+03 U 2.00E+03 U qPCR (cells/g)Collected from ISMsPre-treatment qPCR groundwater data = ND
Plu
meSto
pP
ilot Test
Perfo
rman
ce Mo
nito
ring
PlumeStop Pilot
61
End Products
• Dissolved gas data was collected from the ISMs
• A headspace method was used to quantify ethene in the crushed sandstone matrix
• The data are being assessed
• We know that ethene and ethane are present and
• The amount of ethene increased significantly from the May samples to the August samples
PlumeStop Pilot
62
Geochemistry Shifts
PlumeStop Pilot
63
PlumeStop Pilot Conclusion
Conclusions
64
Conclusions
• Fracture network provides great amendment delivery conditions
• Desired geochemical and microbial conditions established
• 80% total VOC concentration decreases with several years of continued active treatment expected
• Degradation pathway supporting data has been collected for biogeochemical pilot test
• PlumeStop pilot test is early on but very promising
Pilot Tests Conclusions (so far)
Conclusions
65
Conclusions
InSitu Treatment Pump and Treat
M&W-1 Refined materials used on-site Tons 0 4
M&W-5 On-site hazardous waste disposed of off-site Tons 10 10
W-1 Public water use MG 1 0.0
E-1 Total energy used (on-site and off-Site) MMBtu 770 29,365
E-4 On-site grid electricity use MWh 0 2,200.0
A-1 On-site NOx, SOx, and PM emissions Pounds 158 80
A-3 Total NOx, SOx, and PM emissions Pounds 1,011 32,396
A-3A Total NOx emissions Pounds 696 8,513
A-3B Total SOx emissions Pounds 267 23,692
A-3C Total PM emissions Pounds 48 191
A-4 Total HAP emissions Pounds 8 740
A-5 Total greenhouse gas emissions Tons CO2e* 62 1,803
* Total greenhouse gases emissions (in CO2e) include consideration of CO2, CH4, and N2O (Nitrous oxide) emissions.
"MMBtu" = millions of Btus
"MG" = millions of gallons
"CO2e" = carbon dioxide equivalents of global warming potential
"MWh" = megawatt hours (i.e., thousands of kilowatt-hours or millions of Watt-hours)
"Tons" = short tons (2,000 pounds)
Notes:
Land & Ecosystems Minimal disruptions to land and ecosystems.
Environmental Footprint Summary
Materials &
Waste
Air
Unit of
Measure
Core
Element
Footprint
Water
(used
on-site)
Metric
Energy
The above metrics
are consistent with
EPA's
Greener Cleanups: EPA Spreadsheets for Environmental Footprint Analysis - August 2014
• P&T: 20 wells, AS, GAC
• In Situ: 20 wells
• O&M: 20 years, 5 injections
431 0
? Contact:Matthew Burns Technical Fellow Boston, Massachusetts
[email protected]• 617-426-7330• LinkedIn
WSP Project TeamDemo BakenneJeff BakerMichael BrownMatt BurnsDave CarstensDan CummingsBen FosterScott HaitzTim Huff Steve KretschmanMolly LongClinton MeyerMatt PorterMatt RichardsonDave RykacewskiSam Schoenmann